Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Saravana Stocks Investments P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2023)107 ITR 37 (Chennai) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Share transaction-Capital gains-Inadequate enquiry does not amount to lack of enquiry-Revision is quashed-Tribunal recalling earlier ex-parte order-Second appeal becomes as infructuous-Delay is condoned. [S. 45, 143(3),253, 254(1)]

Medical Education And Research Charitable Trust v CIT(E) (2023) 107 ITR 71 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Failure to specify exact purpose of accumulation of income-Purpose of accumulation not beyond objects of assessee-Revision is not justified.[S.11(2), 142(1), 143(3), Form No 10.]

Jubilant Pharmova Ltd. v. PCIT (2023)107 ITR 707 (Delhi) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Failing to furnish required information-No further enquiry-Revision is justified. [S. 143(3)]

Jasjot Singh Garcha v. PCIT (2023)107 ITR 508 (Chd) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Business income-Survey-Statement in the course survey-Assessment order is passed due application of mind-No findings recorded by Principal Commissioner how deeming provisions applicable-Survey at business premises alone cannot be basis for revision.[S.68, 69 69A 69B 69C, 69D 115BBE, 133A, 143(3)]

Feelings v. PCIT (2023)107 ITR 405 (Panaji)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Firm-Remuneration to partners-Book profits-interest income not excluded while determining allowable deduction of remuneration to partners-Interest income business income-Deduction admissible-Central Board Of Direct Taxes Circular No. 12 Of 2019, Dated 19-6-2019-Revision is quashed. [S. 40(b)(v)]

Apna Punjab Resorts Ltd. v.PCIT (2023)107 ITR 11 (Trib) (Chd) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Share premium-Discounted cash flow method-Revenue could not compel assessee to choose particular method of valuation-Revision order is quashed. [S. 56(2(viib), 143(3), R.11U, 11UA]

ITO v. Shivajirao R. Chavan (2023)107 ITR 208(Ahd) (Trib)

S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-Application is filed after five months from period of extension granted and six months after original order-Delay is not condoned.

Arun Kumar Bose v. ITO (2023)107 ITR 263 (Kol) (Trib) Editorial: Order is reversed by High Court Arun Kumar Bosev. ITO (2023) 458 ITR 32 (Cal)(HC)

S. 251 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Powers-Sundry creditors-Matter restoring back to Assessing Officer to make further enquiries is affirmed. [S. 246A,250, 251(1)(a)]

Bharti Singh (Smt.) v. Dy. CIT (2023)107 ITR 29 (SN)(Amritsar) (Trib)

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Procedure-Passing order merely stating wrong facts by cut paste from other assessee’s record-Matter remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) for adjudication afresh in accordance with law.[S. 249]

Nisarahmed Abdulsattar Shaikh v. ITO (2023) 107 ITR 233 (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 206C : Collection at source-Trading-Alcoholic liquor-Forest produce-Scrap-Limitation-Assessment year 2012-13-Assessing Officer ought to have assessed order under section 206C(6A) on or before 31-3-2016-Order barred by limitation-Penalty-Failure to collect tax at source-Quantum appeal quashed-Penalty cannot be levied. [S. 206C(7),271CA]